A student asks Kerry a question and gets tasered

[motivez]

Speaking of whether or not it's a free speech issue:

ACLU: Incident should have been avoided
2:47 p.m.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida has released a statement condemning the use of a Taser gun in the arrest of University of Florida student Andrew Meyer on campus Monday.

Executive Director Howard Simon said aside from the possible use of excessive force, the response of the University Police Department "squandered the free speech rights of both Kerry and Meyer."

Simon said people have a reasonable expectation to ask questions in a public setting, and Sen. John Kerry had a reasonable expectation to be able to answer those questions.

"That is free speech, plain and simple," he said.

-- Diane Chun/The Gainesville Sun

Kerry said to let the man ask his question and that he'd answer.. maybe there is a free speech issue involved after all?

Here's what Kerry had to say:

Sen. Kerry releases statement
1:22 pm, September 18, 2007

Sen. John Kerry said that through dialogue he may have been able to resolve the outburst that occurred during his speech Monday at the University of Florida.

He issued the statement Tuesday afternoon indicating his regret for the incident that resulted in police Tasering a student.

"I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption . . . In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way," Kerry said adding he was in the process of responding to Andrew Meyer's questions when police intervened

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

Speaking of whether or not it's a free speech issue:



Kerry said to let the man ask his question and that he'd answer.. maybe there is a free speech issue involved after all?

Here's what Kerry had to say:

The school dictates the rules of a Q/A session. If they felt this kid broke those rules it was their right to shut his mike off. He decided to escalate it and that was when things start to go bad.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

there has to be a reason to arrest in order to be hit with that charge IMO

Man, you gotta think outside the box every now and then. He was told his time was up. He started yelling. He was asked to leave. He wouldn't. Police come to make him leave, he resists = broken law.

If he would have just left when asked or let the police escort him out nothing would have happened. But that wouldn't have looked good on his camcorder would it?

[SoFlaJDM]

who told him his time was up?

look, the kid was being a douchebag, but that's NO reason to get shocked when you have 4 people on your back...the kid is getting grabbed as kerry is saying let me answer his question... you must have an enhanced audio version or something

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Man, you gotta think outside the box every now and then.

I guess you'd have to think REALLY outside the box, like the next city over from where the box is in order to come up with justification for the excessive force and poor judgment used by the police here.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by motivez

I guess you'd have to think REALLY outside the box, like the next city over from where the box is in order to come up with justification for the excessive force and poor judgment used by the police here.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

I guess you'd have to think REALLY outside the box, like the next city over from where the box is in order to come up with justification for the excessive force and poor judgment used by the police here.

I already said the only question is the use of force. They asked him to stop talking and turned off his mike and then asked the police to escort him out. Are you ignoring complete parts of the story just to continue posting?

[motivez]

Seems there's plenty of people who feel there's a free speech issue involved, I'm still not sure, but this wasn't some invite only event, it was open to the public afaik.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

There are so many untruths and exaggerations in your post it's impossible to respond to. You need to read more news accounts of what happened and also re-watch the video a few times.

Way to duck answering.

It seems lately when reading your posts you are more comfortable attacking the poster and not the actual information? Most of your responses in this thread alone fall under this.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

Seems there's plenty of people who feel there's a free speech issue involved, I'm still not sure, but this wasn't some invite only event, it was open to the public afaik.

There are also people who think the God Hates Fags people should be allowed into a funeral to protest the dead.


In Joe's post he has an exact quote

Kerry asked "What's your question?" he responded "I listened to you for 2 hours. Give me 2 minutes. I'm going to educate the people, then I'll ask my question. And in fact, I have 2 more questions after that."

He was there to video tape himself being as asshole so he could post it on his website. Once he starts screaming what he is going to say and how he is going to say it he lost his opportunity to speak. Should every Q/A turn into a screaming match and should everyone be allowed to carry on for as long as they like about whatever they want? If it's ok for him should it be ok for the guy after him, then a girl after that guy, then another guy after the girl? How about if they all start screaming questions at the same time? Free speech? Or something else? This is all common sense.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

There are also people who think the God Hates Fags people should be allowed into a funeral to protest the dead.

And that's a legitimate question people should be asking, when should free speech be limited?

Originally Posted by Styerlod

He was there to video tape himself being as asshole so he could post it on his website.

Or he wanted to have a video of him talking to the guy who was almost our President as a memory?

Assuming the worst about him without any evidence is just another way to convince yourself actions taken were justified IMO.

Originally Posted by Stylerod

Should every Q/A turn into a screaming match and should everyone be allowed to carry on for as long as they like about whatever they want?

He wasn't up there for very long, and I aside from perhaps being overly enthusiastic I didn't see anything wrong with what he was doing.. if the people there got tired of it they would have started griping at him as well.

Since Kerry said he'd answer, and he is the reason for the event, he should have been deferred to.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Way to duck answering.

It seems lately when reading your posts you are more comfortable attacking the poster and not the actual information? Most of your responses in this thread alone fall under this.

I've answered every question. I can understand people thinking the police used excessive force. But I don't agree the kids first amendment rights were violated. He was there to make a video to put on his website and he had to make it interesting. He did.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by motivez

.. if the people there got tired of it they would have started griping at him as well.

Since Kerry said he'd answer, and he is the reason for the event, he should have been deferred to.

They did. If you would watch the video, you even hear them cheering as he is being escorted out by the police.

Kerry was a guest of the school. The school was in charge of the Q/A. When someone starts to hastle your guest about blow jobs and a long dead election and just rants before actually asking a question you have to decide; are you going to let this wierdo dictate the discussion or are you going to take back control so everyone can enjoy the discussion and get something productive out of it.

[Roonie]

Was the officer given strict orders to control the flow of dialogue? Isn't the university the exact setting for free thinking. While I totally disagree with the apparent belligerence of the student, just because someone doesn't like his tone doesn't mean he should be physically subdued. It seems a strange coincidence that there were a couple officers by the microphone. Speech control? Voice control? He wasn't phyically accosting anyone. He didn't charge after him with arms flailing. He rudely asked a few questions. Those questions are in depth and would expose Kerry. Did anyone see the man looking for confirmation to cut the students questions? (In the suit behind the officers that coicidentally didn't give a rats a$$) All was fine until someone gave the final order. The student finishes his questions, and then is grabbed and removed. At that point Kerry says "That's ok, let me answer his questions," but doesn't do anything. At what point is it ok to just grab and remove someone because you don't like what they are saying and how they are saying it. Don't you want to know the answers to those questions? Instead of grabbing him why didn't they let a response happen?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Roonie

Was the officer given strict orders to control the flow of dialogue? Isn't the university the exact setting for free thinking. While I totally disagree with the apparent belligerence of the student, just because someone doesn't like his tone doesn't mean he should be physically subdued.

I'm not even going to read past this part because, again, you are exagerating and making up your own facts. Please, read more about this story before posting again.

Here, I'll help you on the first part. The kids comes up to the mike and starts ranting. Finally Kerry, in frustration asks, "Do you have a question?" Then the kid talks down to Kerry saying "You've been given 2 hours to talk now it's my turn blah blah blah..." The people in charge of the Q/A session turn off his mike. Ok, let me repeat that. The people in charge of the Q/A session (not the police! remember, not the police!) turn off his mike. Then he starts screaming and he is asked to leave. When he doesn't leave THEN the police are called in to ask to help him out.

The comment

Was the officer given strict orders to control the flow of dialogue?

is completely false and shows you know nothing about what happened. Please read the story, actually, read a few stories. Not Blogs, but actual news stories, and then come back in and try to make a good point.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by SoFlaJDM

there has to be a reason to arrest in order to be hit with that charge IMO

He was kicked out of an organized event for breaking the rules.
He refused to leave, making him guilty of trespassing.
He kept thrashing around, screaming, and trying to run away, so chalk one up in the "resisting arrest" column to go with trespassing.

[Roonie]

I agee with paying the consequences for disobeying the law, but if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson had got up in front of that class and said the exact words that the kid in the video said, no one would have stepped in. If anyone would have stepped in and tried to stop it, much less arrest either one of them, there would be nothing but hell brought down on those cops. Even further, let one of those guys get Tazed..... , They would have the cops head on a platter.

[SoFlaJDM]

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

He was kicked out of an organized event for breaking the rules.
He refused to leave, making him guilty of trespassing.
He kept thrashing around, screaming, and trying to run away, so chalk one up in the "resisting arrest" column to go with trespassing.

ok man, whatever you say

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Roonie

I agee with paying the consequences for disobeying the law, but if Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson had got up in front of that class and said the exact words that the kid in the video said, no one would have stepped in. If anyone would have stepped in and tried to stop it, much less arrest either one of them, there would be nothing but hell brought down on those cops. Even further, let one of those guys get Tazed..... , They would have the cops head on a platter.

The image of Sharpton getting tazed just made me laugh out loud. People looked at me funny